Rational Pavelka logic extends Lukasiewicz infinitely valued logic by adding truth constants r̄ for rationals in [0, 1]. We show that this is a conservative extension. We note that this shows that provability degree can be defined in Lukasiewicz logic. We also give a counterexample to a soundness theorem of Belluce and Chang published in 1963.

We consider first-order infinite-valued Łukasiewicz logic and its expansion, first-order rational Pavelka logic RPL∀. From the viewpoint of provability, we compare several Gentzen-type hypersequent calculi for these logics with each other and with Hájek’s Hilbert-type calculi for the same logics. To facilitate comparing previously known calculi for the logics, we define two new analytic calculi for RPL∀ and include them in our comparison. The key part of the comparison is a density elimination proof that introduces no (...) cuts for one of the hypersequent calculi considered. (shrink)

Rational Pavelka logic extends Lukasiewicz infinitely valued logic $by adding truth constants \bar{r} for rationals in [0, 1].$ We show that this is a conservative extension. We note that this shows that provability degree can be defined in Lukasiewicz logic. We also give a counterexample to a soundness theorem of Belluce and Chang published in 1963.

In this paper we define the polyadic Pavelka algebras as algebraic structures for Rational Pavelka predicate calculus . We prove two representation theorems which are the algebraic counterpart of the completness theorem for RPL∀.

Justification logics provide a framework for reasoning about justifications and evidence. In this article, we study a fuzzy variant of justification logics in which an agent’s justification for a belief has certainty degree between 0 and 1. We replace the classical base of justification logics with Hájek’s rational Pavelka logic. We introduce fuzzy possible world semantics with crisp accessibility relation and also single world models for our logics. We establish soundness and graded-style completeness for both kinds of (...) semantics. We also introduce extensions with product conjunction. Finally, we offer a solution to a variant of the sorites paradox in our fuzzy justification logics. (shrink)

An algebraic setting for the validity of Pavelka style completeness for some natural expansions of Łukasiewicz logic by new connectives and rational constants is given. This algebraic approach is based on the fact that the standard MV-algebra on the real segment [0, 1] is an injective MV-algebra. In particular the logics associated with MV-algebras with product and with divisible MV-algebras are considered.

The logics RŁ, RP, and RG have been obtained by expanding Łukasiewicz logic Ł, product logic P, and Gödel–Dummett logic G with rational constants. We study the lattices of extensions and structural completeness of these three expansions, obtaining results that stand in contrast to the known situation in Ł, P, and G. Namely, RŁ is hereditarily structurally complete. RP is algebraized by the variety of rational product algebras that we show to be Q-universal. We provide (...) a base of admissible rules in RP, show their decidability, and characterize passive structural completeness for extensions of RP. Furthermore, structural completeness, hereditary structural completeness, and active structural completeness coincide for extensions of RP, and this is also the case for extensions of RG, where in turn passive structural completeness is characterized by the equivalent algebraic semantics having the joint embedding property. For nontrivial axiomatic extensions of RG, we provide a base of admissible rules. We leave the problem open whether the variety of rational Gödel algebras is Q-universal. (shrink)

In this paper we prove polyadic counterparts of the Hájek, Paris and Shepherdson's conservative extension theorems of Łukasiewicz predicate logic to rational Pavelka predicate logic. We also discuss the algebraic correspondents of the provability and truth degree for polyadic MV-algebras and prove a representation theorem similar to the one for polyadic Pavelka algebras.

We present logic programming style “goal-directed” proof methods for Łukasiewicz logic Ł that both have a logical interpretation, and provide a suitable basis for implementation. We introduce a basic version, similar to goal-directed calculi for other logics, and make refinements to improve efficiency and obtain termination. We then provide an algorithm for fuzzy logic programming in Rational Pavelka logic RPL, an extension of Ł with rational constants.

This paper presents a logical Style painting classifier based on evaluated Horn clauses, qualitative colour descriptors and Explanations. Three versions of $\ell $-SHE are defined, using rational Pavelka logic, and expansions of Gödel logic and product logic with rational constants: RPL, $G$ and $\sqcap $, respectively. We introduce a fuzzy representation of the more representative colour traits for the Baroque, the Impressionism and the Post-Impressionism art styles. The $\ell $-SHE algorithm has been implemented in (...) Swi-Prolog and tested on 90 paintings of the QArt-Dataset and on 247 paintings of the Paintings-91-PIB dataset. The percentages of accuracy obtained in the QArt-Dataset for each $\ell $-SHE version are 73.3%, 65.6% $) and 68.9% $). Regarding the Paintings-91-PIB dataset, the percentages of accuracy obtained for each $\ell $-SHE version are 60.2%, 48.2% $) and 57.0% $). Our logic definition for the Baroque style has obtained the highest accuracy in both datasets, for all the $\ell $-SHE versions. An important feature of the classifier is that it provides reasons regarding why a painting belongs to a certain style. The classifier also provides reasons about why outliers of one art style may belong to another art style, giving a second classification option depending on its membership degrees to these styles. (shrink)

It is a popular view thatpractical deliberation excludes foreknowledge of one's choice. Wolfgang Spohn and Isaac Levi have argued that not even a purely probabilistic self-predictionis available to thedeliberator, if one takes subjective probabilities to be conceptually linked to betting rates. It makes no sense to have a betting rate for an option, for one's willingness to bet on the option depends on the net gain from the bet, in combination with the option's antecedent utility, rather than on the offered (...) odds. And even apart from this consideration, assigning probabilities to the options among which one is choosing is futile since such probabilities could be of no possible use in choice. The paper subjects these arguments to critical examination and suggests that, appearances notwithstanding, practical deliberation need not crowd outself-prediction. (shrink)

In this paper, we introduce a foundation for computable model theory of rational Pavelka logic and continuous logic, and prove effective versions of some related theorems in model theory. We show how to reduce continuous logic to rational Pavelka logic. We also define notions of computability and decidability of a model for logics with computable, but uncountable, set of truth values; we show that provability degree of a formula with respect to a (...) linear theory is computable, and use this to carry out an effective Henkin construction. Therefore, for any effectively given consistent linear theory in continuous logic, we effectively produce its decidable model. This is the best possible, since we show that the computable model theory of continuous logic is an extension of computable model theory of classical logic. We conclude with noting that the unique separable model of a separably categorical and computably axiomatizable theory is decidable. (shrink)

In this paper we provide a finite axiomatization (using two finitary rules only) for the propositional logic (called $L\Pi$ ) resulting from the combination of Lukasiewicz and Product Logics, together with the logic obtained by from $L \Pi$ by the adding of a constant symbol and of a defining axiom for $\frac{1}{2}$ , called $L \Pi\frac{1}{2}$ . We show that $L \Pi \frac{1}{2}$ contains all the most important propositional fuzzy logics: Lukasiewicz Logic, Product Logic, Gödel's Fuzzy (...) Logic, Takeuti and Titani's Propositional Logic, Pavelka's Rational Logic, Pavelka's Rational Product Logic, the Lukasiewicz Logic with $\Delta$ , and the Product and Gödel's Logics with $\Delta$ and involution. Standard completeness results are proved by means of investigating the algebras corresponding to $L \Pi$ and $L \Pi \frac{1}{2}$ . For these algebras, we prove a theorem of subdirect representation and we show that linearly ordered algebras can be represented as algebras on the unit interval of either a linearly ordered field, or of the ordered ring of integers, Z. (shrink)

In Rationality and Logic, Robert Hanna argues that logic is intrinsically psychological and that human psychology is intrinsically logical. He claims that logic is cognitively constructed by rational animals and that rational animals are essentially logical animals. In order to do so, he defends the broadly Kantian thesis that all rational animals possess an innate cognitive "logic faculty." Hanna 's claims challenge the conventional philosophical wisdom that sees logic as a fully formal (...) or "topic-neutral" science irreconcilably separate from the species- or individual-specific focus of empirical psychology.Logic and psychology went their separate ways after attacks by Frege and Husserl on logical psychologism--the explanatory reduction of logic to empirical psychology. Hanna argues, however, that--despite the fact that logical psychologism is false--there is an essential link between logic and psychology. Rational human animals constitute the basic class of cognizers or thinkers studied by cognitive psychology; given the connection between rationality and logic that Hanna claims, it follows that the nature of logic is significantly revealed to us by cognitive psychology. Hanna 's proposed "logical cognitivism" has two important consequences: the recognition by logically oriented philosophers that psychologists are their colleagues in the metadiscipline of cognitive science; and radical changes in cognitive science itself. Cognitive science, Hanna argues, is not at bottom a natural science; it is both an objective or truth-oriented science and a normative human science, as is logic itself. (shrink)

Does rationality require logical omniscience? Our best formal theories of rationality imply that it does, but our ordinary evaluations of rationality seem to suggest otherwise. This paper aims to resolve the tension by arguing that our ordinary evaluations of rationality are not only consistent with the thesis that rationality requires logical omniscience, but also provide a compelling rationale for accepting this thesis in the first place. This paper also defends an account of apriori justification for logical beliefs that is designed (...) to explain the rational requirement of logical omniscience. On this account, apriori justification for beliefs about logic has its source in logical facts, rather than psychological facts about experience, reasoning, or understanding. This account has important consequences for the epistemic role of experience in the logical domain. In a slogan, the epistemic role of experience in the apriori domain is not a justifying role, but rather an enabling and disabling role. (shrink)

cognitive psychology; given the connection between rationality and logic that Hanna claims, it follows that the nature of logic is significantly revealed to us by cognitive psychology. Hanna's proposed "logical cognitivism" has two important consequences: the recognition by logically oriented philosophers that psychologists are their colleagues in the metadiscipline of cognitive science; and radical changes in cognitive science itself. Cognitive science, Hanna argues, is not at bottom a natural science; it is both an objective or truth-oriented science and (...) a normative human science, as is logic itself. (shrink)

Preface for instructors -- Preface for students (you really should read it) -- What is logic about? -- Sentential logic basics -- Sentential logic proofs -- More sentential logic : contradictions, tautologies and assumptions -- Predicate logic basics -- Proofs in predicate logic -- Probability : the basic rules of life -- The theorem of Dr. Bayes -- Probability illusions : why we are so bad at inductive reasoning -- Studies have shown ... or (...) have they? -- Inference to the best explanation -- Rhetoric : the art of persuasion -- Won't get fooled again (fallacies and other foibles) -- Spin, spin, spin (or how not to be a sucker) -- Everything you know is wrong! : pseudoscience and bogus scholarship. (shrink)

We present an abstract model of rationality that focuses on structural properties of attitudes. Rationality requires coherence between your attitudes, such as your beliefs, values, and intentions. We define three 'logical' conditions on attitudes: consistency, completeness, and closedness. They parallel the familiar logical conditions on beliefs, but contrast with standard rationality conditions like preference transitivity. We establish a formal correspondence between our logical conditions and standard rationality conditions. Addressing John Broome's programme 'rationality through reasoning', we formally characterize how you can (...) (not) become more logical by reasoning. Our analysis connects rationality with logic, and enables logical talk about multi-attitude psychology. (shrink)

In this brief article, I review the main argument's of Robert Hanna's <em>Rationality and Logic</em>.

I argue for the thesis (UL) that there are certain logical abilities that any rational creature must have. Opposition to UL comes from naturalized epistemologists who hold that it is a purely empirical question which logical abilities a rational creature has. I provide arguments that any creatures meeting certain conditions—plausible necessary conditions on rationality—must have certain specific logical concepts and be able to use them in certain specific ways. For example, I argue that any creature able to grasp (...) theories must have a concept of conjunction subject to the usual introduction and elimination rules. I also deal with disjunction, conditionality and negation. Finally, I put UL to work in showing how it could be used to define a notion of logical obviousness that would be well suited to certain contexts—e.g. radical translation and epistemic logic—in which a concept of obviousness is often invoked. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The term fuzzy logic has two different meanings -broad and narrow. In Zadeh's opinion, fuzzy logic is an extension of many- valued logic but having a different agenda—as generalized modus ponens, max-min inference, linguistic quantifiers etc. The question we address in this paper is whether there is something in Zadeh's specific agenda which cannot be grasped by “classiceli”, “traditional” mathematical logic. We show that much of fuzzy logic can be understood as classical deduction in (...) a many-sorted many-valued Pavelka- Lukasiewicz style rational quantification logic. This means that, besides the linguistic or approximation aspects, the logical aspect is present too and can be made explicit. (shrink)

The object of this essay is to demonstrate a logical connection between beliefs and values. It is argued that such a connection can be established only if one keeps in mind the question: What is minimally required in order that it makes sense to speak of beliefs and values at all? Thus, the concept of minimal rationality is indispensable to the task at hand. A particular example of a logical connection between a belief and a value is examined, which leads (...) to a formal rule (Rule of Minimal Rationality) which expresses in general the logical connection between beliefs and values. This rule is elaborated to include attempted activities as well as activities simpliciter, activities having been discovered as essential to any logical connection between beliefs and values. Finally, some interesting implications and promising applications of the Rule of Minimal Rationality are outlined. (shrink)

What role, if any, does formal logic play in characterizing epistemically rational belief? Traditionally, belief is seen in a binary way - either one believes a proposition, or one doesn't. Given this picture, it is attractive to impose certain deductive constraints on rational belief: that one's beliefs be logically consistent, and that one believe the logical consequences of one's beliefs. A less popular picture sees belief as a graded phenomenon.

(A) Books: (3) Kant, Science, and Human Nature (Oxford: OUP, forthcoming). (2) Rationality and Logic (Cambridge: MIT Press, forthcoming). (1) Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon/OUP, 2001 [pbk., 2004]). (B) Articles: (30) "Kant, Wittgenstein, and the Fate of Analysis," in M. Beaney (ed.), The Analytic Turn (London: Routledge, forthcoming.) (29) "Kant and the Analytic Tradition," in C. Boundas (ed.), A Companion to the Twentieth-Century Philosophies (Edinburgh: Univ. of Edinburgh Press, forthcoming).

Game-theoretic solution concepts describe sets of strategy profiles that are optimal for all players in some plausible sense. Such sets are often found by recursive algorithms like iterated removal of strictly dominated strategies in strategic games, or backward induction in extensive games. Standard logical analyses of solution sets use assumptions about players in fixed epistemic models for a given game, such as mutual knowledge of rationality. In this paper, we propose a different perspective, analyzing solution algorithms as processes of learning (...) which change game models. Thus, strategic equilibrium gets linked to fixed-points of operations of repeated announcement of suitable epistemic statements. This dynamic stance provides a new look at the current interface of games, logic, and computation. (shrink)

Originally published in 1968. This is a critical study of the concept of 'rule' featuring in law, ethics and much philosophical analysis which the author uses to investigate the concept of 'rationality'. The author indicates in what manner the modes of reasoning involved in reliance upon rules are unique and in what fashion they provide an alternative both to the modes of logico-mathematical reasoning and to the modes of scientific reasoning. This prepares the groundwork for a methodology meeting the requirements (...) of the fields using rules such as law and ethics which could be significant for communications theory and the use of computers in normative fields. Other substantive issues related to the mainstream of legal philosophy are discussed - theories of interpretation, the notion of purpose and the requirements of principled decision-making. The book utilizes examples drawn from English and American legal decisions to suggest how the positions of legal positivism and of natural law are equally artificial and misleading. (shrink)

The program put forward in von Wright's last works defines deontic logic as ``a study of conditions which must be satisfied in rational norm-giving activity'' and thus introduces the perspective of logical pragmatics. In this paper a formal explication for von Wright's program is proposed within the framework of set-theoretic approach and extended to a two-sets model which allows for the separate treatment of obligation-norms and permission norms. The three translation functions connecting the language of deontic logic (...) with the language of the extended set-theoretical approach are introduced, and used in proving the correspondence between the deontic theorems, on one side, and the perfection properties of the norm-set and the ``counter-set'', on the other side. In this way the possibility of reinterpretation of standard deontic logic as the theory of perfection properties that ought to be achieved in norm-giving activity has been formally proved. The extended set-theoretic approach is applied to the problem of rationality of principles of completion of normative systems. The paper concludes with a plaidoyer for logical pragmatics turn envisaged in the late phase of Von Wright's work in deontic logic. (shrink)

For the past 20 years or so the literature on noncooperative games has been centered on the search for an equilibrium concept that expresses the notion of rational behavior in interactive situations. A basic tenet in this literature is that if a “rational solution” exists, it must be a Nash equilibrium. The consensus view, however, is that not all Nash equilibria can be accepted as rational solutions. Consider, for example, the game of Figure 1.

In this paper, I will discuss boulesic and deontic logic and the relationship between these branches of logic. By ‘boulesic logic,’ or ‘the logic of the will,’ I mean a new kind of logic that deals with ‘boulesic’ concepts, expressions, sentences, arguments and systems. I will concentrate on two types of boulesic expression: ‘individual x wants it to be the case that’ and ‘individual x accepts that it is the case that.’ These expressions will be (...) symbolised by two sentential operators that take individuals and sentences as arguments and give sentences as values. Deontic logic is a relatively well-established branch of logic. It deals with normative concepts, sentences, arguments and systems. In this paper, I will show how deontic logic can be grounded in boulesic logic. I will develop a set of semantic tableau systems that include boulesic and alethic operators, possibilist quantifiers and the identity predicate; I will then show how these systems can be augmented by a set of deontic operators. I use a kind of possible world semantics to explain the intended meaning of our formal systems. Intuitively, we can think of our semantics as a description of the structure of a perfectly rational will. I mention some interesting theorems that can be proved in our systems, including some versions of the so-called hypothetical imperative. Finally, I show that all systems that are described in this paper are sound and complete with respect to their semantics. (shrink)

The notion of rationality is crucial to Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Economics, Law, Philosophy, Psychology, Anthropology, etc. Most if not all of these disciplines presuppose the agent's capacity to infer in a logical manner. Theories about rationality tend toward two extremes: either they presuppose an unattainable logical capacity, or they tend to minimize the role of logic, in light of vast data on fallacious inferential performance. We analyze some presuppositions in the classical view of logic, and suggest (...) empirical and theoretical evidence for the place of inferential heuristics in a theory of rationality. We propose (1) to outline a new theory of rationality that includes the key notion of logical capacity as a necessary but realistic factor, (2) to expand the notion of inference to include non-deductive inference, specifically non-monotonic, and (3) to emphasize the logical role of inferential heuristics and constraints such as cognitive economy. (shrink)

The main goal of the paper is to investigate the relation between indicative conditionals and rationality. We wil l do this by consider- ing several interpretations of a very wel l-known example of reasoning involving conditionals, that is the Wason selection task, and showing how those interpretations have different bearings on the notion of ra- tionality. In particular, in the first part of the paper, after having briefly presented the selection task, we wil l take a look at two prag- (...) matic responses to the chal lenge posed by the task, through Wason ’s notion of confirmation bias and Grice’s theory of conversational im- plicature. The second part wil l introduce Adams’ probabilistic view of indicative conditionals and wil l give reasons for preferring his account to those aforementioned. The conclusion wil l evaluate the question of human rationality in the light of the new standpoint acquired. -/-. (shrink)

The article covers such issues as the relevance of the theory of perception as a multi-level information processing, the methodological role of the concept of representation and the relation of neurodynamic structures to subjective experience. The author critically reviews the philosophical presumptions underlying the various concepts of “local rationality,” the core of which is constituted by the belief that large ethnic cultures generate or are based on their own rationality and their own logic. Three statements are successively considered: thinking (...) is based on the inherent rules of rationality, logic is an extract of rationality, and types of rationality are geographically consistent with large ethnocultural communities. Empirical arguments are presented that demonstrate equivocality of the first two theses. In particular, firstly, it is shown that the genuine rationality of thinking lies not in following the rules that are immanent to it, but in the development of thinking and, more broadly, cognitive operations towards optimization of certain indicators of the cognitive or motor system that are important for survival and adaptation. In addition, this rationality is multivariate, and the choice between variants is often weakly determined or even random. Thus, the first statement turns out to be refuted. Secondly, by reference to the well-known experiments, it is shown that most people do not explicitly follow some declared logical rules in solving even logical or mathematical problems, and yet there is reason to consider their behavior rational. The third thesis, as shown with some limited empirical material, appears to be partially confirmed. Nevertheless, the demonstration of the doubtfulness of the first two theses makes the conclusion that different nations have different logics insufficiently substantiated. (shrink)

The objective of this book is to produce a theory of rational decision making for realistically resource-bounded agents. My interest is not in “What should I do if I were an ideal agent?”, but rather, “What should I do given that I am who I am, with all my actual cognitive limitations?” The book has three parts. Part One addresses the question of where the values come from that agents use in rational decision making. The most comon view (...) among philosophers is that they are based on preferences, but I argue that this is computationally impossible. I propose an alternative theory somewhat reminiscent of Bentham, and explore how human beings actually arrive at values and how they use them in decision making. Part Two investigates the knowledge of probability that is required for decision-theoretic reasoning. I argue that subjective probability makes no sense as applied to realistic agents. I sketch a theory of objective probability to put in its place. Then I use that to define a variety of causal probability and argue that this is the kind of probability presupposed by rational decision making. So what is to be defended is a variety of causal decision theory. Part Three explores how these values and probabilities are to be used in decision making. In chapter eight, it is argued first that actions cannot be evaluated in terms of their expected values as ordinarily defined, because that does not take account of the fact that a cognizer may be unable to perform an action, and may even be unable to try to perform it. An alternative notion of “expected utility” is defined to be used in place of expected values. In chapter nine it is argued that individual actions cannot be the proper objects of decision-theoretic evaluation. We must instead choose plans, and select actions indirectly on the grounds that they are prescribed by the plans we adopt. However, our objective cannot be to find plans with maximal expected utilities. Plans cannot be meaningfully compared in that way. (shrink)